Court No. - 30
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5043 of 2018 Petitioner :- Paddam Narayan Dubey Respondent :- Ranu And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shyam Surat Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Ram Tiwari
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hear learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ram Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 and perused the record.
Present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 11.5.2018 passed by the Additional Small Cause Court Judge, Court No. 1, Kanpur Nagar in Rent Case No. 42/2014 (Ranu vs. Paddam Narayan and others) whereby the application being paper no. 26 filed by the tenant (petitioner herein) that release application filed by the landlord is no longer maintainable and is liable to be rejected, was filed on the ground that the tenant-petitioner has purchased the property by registered sale deed dated 8.8.2016 and as such, he has become the owner of the tenanted accommodation and therefore, the release application is not maintainable. The application was rejected on the ground that all such questions regarding execution of sale deed and question that the tenant- petitioner is the owner of the property in dispute can be considered only after consideration of the entire evidence is given. Under such circumstances, the application has been rejected.
Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once the petitioner has purchased the property in question and has now become owner of the property, the release application filed by the landlord-respondents has become infructuous and is no longer maintainable.
Per contra, Sri Ram Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1, placing reliance on the judgement of this Court rendered in the case of Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. Additional District Judge & others, 2016 (1) AWC 139, has submitted that mere on purchase of a portion of the share of one of the co-owners, the release application would not become infructuous and maintainable. He thus submits that no interference is warranted in the order impugned herein.
I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.
It is not in dispute that the original owner of the property was late Prayag Narayan Dwivedi. The landlady-contesting respondent is daughter of late Prayag Narayan Dwivedi and she has filed release application in the year 2014 and Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi is the son of late Prayag Narayan Dwivedi. The application was filed with a specific averment that Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi was separated from the family and he is living separately and that the applicant is co-owner and it has also been averred in paragraph 4 of the plaint that Shailendra is having enmity with her as after divorce the applicant has come back and is living with her mother. Admittedly, the property was purchased by the petitioner herein during the pendency of release application on 8.8.2016 from Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi, who was, according to the assertions made in the release application, separated from the family and is living separately.
Under such circumstances, rejection of the application does not suffer from any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error.
Accordingly, present petition is devoid of merit and dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that since he has purchased the property in question after making huge investment, therefore the release application may be directed to be decided expeditiously.
Court below is directed to expedite the hearing of the release application and decide the same on its own merit, in accordance with law, expeditiously by giving short dates provided there is no legal impediment and no unnecessary adjournments shall be granted to the parties.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.7.2018 Abhishek